Lansdowne vs Kanata vs Lebreton Flats

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=956796

Some TFC fans on what has made their club a success. I'm putting it here because a couple of them said it was because the stadium was downtown. Another interesting comment was that the team is marketed to hardcore soccer fans and not soccer moms. You can definitely see that with the streamers, chants, scarves, drums, and LOUD cheering.

 

I got the chance to speak to Councillor Georges Bédard (Rideau-Vanier) for a couple of minutes yesterday. We happened to be on the same shuttle-bus to ScotiaBank Place for the Sens-Leafs [sic] game.

Here’s a translation (more or less) of our conversation:

Me - So, soccer or football?

Councillor Bédard - Ideally, both. It was a mistake to allow the arena to be built in Kanata and there are currently no plans to extend mass transit that far out.

Me - I agree that Kanata is not ideal, but it works for the Senators, who were 3rd overall in NHL attendance last year. In fact, we’re proving that it works right now by taking a shuttle-bus to the game.

Councillor Bédard – Yeah, but we can’t make the same mistake twice.

We didn’t say much beyond that, as I didn’t want to press him on the issue. But I really got the impression that he’s opposed to building a stadium in Kanata, although I don’t know how he feels about Lansdowne as opposed to any other downtown location (we didn’t get into that).

I give him points for being approachable though (the fact that he was wearing a City of Ottawa hat helped me to be sure it was him) and for taking the time to talk.

If you happen across any councillors out there, ask them where they stand on the issue.

 

I've noticed the same initial bias in favour of CFL/Lansdowne from the couple of councilors I have spoken to. I just hope when they look at the economic proposals in detail they will see the advantages in the MLS/Kanata proposal.

There is a lot of education still required, though,as I don't think they have realised yet that there is no realistic scenario in which we can get an MLS team at Lansdowne.

 

I would love to see soccer in Ottawa but hate the idea of a stadium in Kanata. Georges Bedard has it exactly right - we can't make the same mistake twice.

Some of you are forgetting that a stadium is an important civic asset and a city-building exercise. To put it out in the far-reaches of suburban Kanata would be counter to every principle of modern urban planning. At Lansdowne, you have a walkable, cyclable location which will have a positive effect on neighbourhood bars/restaurants etc.

You might get that at Bayview eventually, but I think we can agree that neither ownership group has an interest in going there. In addition, you need to rebuild the Civic Centre separate and apart from the stadium. The costs involved and lack of ownership make that option very unlikely. There are no synergies at Carleton, though the location is central and the transit is better.

Soccer can definitely work in a CFL stadium, even if it means having seating only on the sides of the pitch. The required capacity is almost identical, and grass works for both. It is a little silly to say that soccer can only be played in stadiums that only house soccer teams - even if used for rec soccer, you have 20,000 seats that will be empty about 95% of the time. Not a good use of resources. A shared stadium has a much better chance of being viable.

The best option for Ottawa is to revitalize the centrally-located stadium it already has and get a USL team which would have a natural rivalry with Montreal. Once it is established, it can take the next step. I suspect that the MLS expansion fee is going to go down rather than up, given the reaction of the bidders. There will be another chance, and in the mean time, we can demonstrate that Ottawa can support a USL team.

 

AaronEmes
I will agree the stadium should be at landsown.But i am getting really sick of some people saying kanata is far.The fact is its not that far is it downtown no is hours away no.Yes i can understand it can be a bit of a drive for some.Here is an exzample i did read ona messege board someone said the drive is 1 plus for anyone not from kanata.This is not true yes for some it maybe but not for everyone not from kanata.

 

And I'm getting tired of people talking about soccer at Lansdowne at all. The only place MLS is on offer is in Kanata.

 

You know what, I'm glad they built SBP out in Kanata. If fifteen years ago the powers that be decided to treat it as a "city-building exercise" and in keeping with the principles of modern urban planning - then it never would have been built. The city wasn't going to pay for it, and the Kanata location was the best that the ownership group could afford. We wouldn't have the Senators, the 3rd best attended out of 30 NHL teams in 2008 in spite of the location, and the city would be poorer for it.

This our best shot at MLS for the foreseeable future. We're competing against much larger cities that - luckily - don't have the combination of quality ownership and stadium plans in their current bids that we have in ours. If Eugene Melnyk owned the Impact, Montreal would have its team. It's only going to get more competitive in future rounds when other cities get their bids in order.

Having to choose between two flawed proposals, hopefully city council will have the vision to accept the one that will land us a team in a league that most would agree has a higher upside than the CFL.

 

I understand that you are all very excited about the prospect of Melnyk backing the bid, and I recognize that this may be Ottawa's only chance at MLS soccer for a while. May be. But that isn't a good reason to put blinders on and make a big city-planning mistake.

First, Kanata is far. Not for some, but for most of the city. The city of Ottawa is approximately 50 km from east to west, and this stadium will be on the far west side of the city. As a Sens season ticket holder coming from downtown, I can assure you that if I don't budget an hour for travel, I have no guarantee of making it to a game on time. Half of Ottawa's population lives east of me and hence has a longer trip. In addition to travel time, there are good environmental reasons for not putting a stadium in the far-suburban reaches and forcing everyone to drive to it.

Second, yes the Sens were third in attendance last year, after going to the Cup final. Have you checked the attendance stats this year? There has been a dramatic drop-off in attendance since Christmas. Also look at the attendance figures prior to the Melnyk era. The fact is that the Sens will struggle to fill the building when the team is not competitive. A big reason for that is arena location. Why handicap an MLS team with the same issue?

We have to remember that this is not just a soccer stadium, but will be Ottawa's only outdoor sports venue. It will also be a premier outdoor concert venue. It's bad enough having to drive out to SBP for indoor concerts. Now we will have to drive to all concerts? Not quite the same experience as a concert at the Bell Centre or the ACC.

I have a problem with this type of take it or leave it proposition. If Melnyk was really interested in what's best for the city, and not in supporting develpment of his parking lots, he would be more flexible in his proposals. He has no interest in a plan that would benefit other businesses or the city generally. I know you all desperately want MLS. I would be first in line for season tickets if the plan was right. This one isn't, and I won't be supporting it.

 

I completely disagree with your statement that Melnyk should be more flexible. He has come up with a plan that he believes gives him a good chance to be sucessful in bringing MLS to Ottawa, and having the team be successful here. If he changes his plan to a shared stadium at Lansdowne with CFL as the prime tenant, his business model does not work. He would receive half (or less) of the stadium naming rights money, half (or less) of the sponsorship money, half (or less) of the parking revenue etc. He has clearly stated that this would lead to a team starting out on a significantly weaker financial footing than he would like.

In addition, he knows that the chance of MLS awarding a frachise to Ottawa without a soccer-specific stadium, is almost zero.

 

And incidentally, just how flexible are the Hunt Group? I haven't seen them offering to put a CFL franchise anywhere other than Lansdowne, where they have their whole real-estate development plans.

Try to be fair with your comments.

 

That is quite the clever argument Melnyk is making. If he doesn't get all of the revenue from all possible sources (including revenue from naming a stadium that the government is primarily responsible for financing), the team won't be viable. If that is the only way the team can be viable, then maybe it isn't a viable proposition.

Still not a good reason to build in Kanata.

To your last point, I note that Vancouver is likely to get a team in BC Place, a CFL stadium, with no definite plan for a SSS. A rebuilt Frank Clair stadium would be a hundred times better than that. MLS will go where there is a workable business plan. 25,000 seat CFL stadiums are a natural fit.

 

Vancouver is not Ottawa. Their bid may stand being in a non-SSS for a limited time until their SSS is ready, personally I don't believe that Ottawa's will. And although they may have no 'definite' plan for a SSS, it's important to remember that the Whitecaps still intend to pursue building their own stadium on the waterfront lands they own, and this intention was part of their proposal to MLS.

 

Let's not confuse holding a different opinion with being unfair. After all, aren't you the one suggesting that councillors in favour of Lansdowne have a "bias" and that a decision in favour of Kanata demonstrates "vision"? A stadium in Kanata is only visionary if you have one goal in mind - MLS at all costs.

The Hunt group has indicated far more flexibility in terms of sharing a stadium and giving up preferred dates. They have also invited public consultation on the use of the rest of the Lansdowne site. While they have chosen their location, there is considerably more openness as to how it will be developed.

In any event, I think it is unlikely that you will be convinced. Just recognize that there are other visions involved here.

 

I have never suggested that councillors are biased in favour Lansdowne and that a decision in favour of Kanata demonstrates vision. What I have said is that this year represents Ottawa's only reasonable shot at an MLS franchise, for a number of reasons, and if people want MLS in Ottawa, they need to support the Melnyk propoosal, and that means not supporting Lansdowne Live.

I have also said that Councillors are probably more likely to support the Lansdowne proposal at present because they have to do something with that site anyway and there is only the one proposal on the table at present. This does not mean that it is the best approach for Ottawa.

Personally I don't think Lansdowne is a suitable location for a stadium that is not served by some form of rapid transit. My opinion is that there is not enough parking in the current plan, and buses down Bank Street can't handle the volume of spectators. Just my personal opinion.

The Hunt Group's 'flexibility' amounts to a verbal suggestion that they would let an MLS tenant have first choice of dates. Nothing more. That's meaninless and about equivalent to Cyril Leeder saying a couple of days ago that it is possible that Melnyk could put a CFL team in Kanata at some point in the future. And, as you say, the Hunt Group have "chosen their location" and I think its a tie on flexibility (or lack thereof).

 

Fair point on the lack of details. The Lansdowne group has only stated that it is willing to cede dates and discuss co-operation. I choose to believe there is something workable there.

As far as transit at Lansdowne is concerned, you need to remember that Scotiabank Place is not served by rapid transit, nor is there any plan to do so. Lansdowne offers many more transportation options. Many people can and will walk, bike, take cabs (for less than $60) or take the three bus routes that stop within blocks of the park. Because of that, 25,000 people at Lansdowne has never been the nightmare that SBP parking lots are after every game.

I agree that the lack of rapid transit is a drawback, but surely it is easier to add some shuttle buses to travel the 12 or so blocks to the existing transitway than it is to build new rapid transit all the way out to Kanata.

 

Agreed. The factor in favour of SBP is the size of the parking lot, even if it was not as well designed as it could be. Having said that, I was out of the parking lot and on the Queensway in less than 10 minutes on Saturday night (not something I ever managed at Lansdowne). And remember, the parking at Lansdowne will be significantly reduced in size with the new plan, so that it will be harder to get to than in the past.

There have been people posting on this board saying they would walk to soccer at SBP, although I'm sure there would not be as many as would walk to Lansdowne. Probably more than walk to Sens games, though. Palladium Drive on a warm summer afternoon, is a lot more appealing than Palladium Drive on a cold winter night.

People will come from all over the region though, so wherever you build a stadium, the majority of people will use cars or public transit.

 

No question that the Sens parking lots have been a lot better lately. People in this town aren't used to the prospect of mathematical elimination in March.

Parking is always going to be a tougher proposition at Lansdowne. I am admitting my own bias here, but I'm not sure making parking more difficult is a bad thing. Anything that encourages public transit use and other modes of transportation is a move in the right direction. Though prospective franchise owners do not have much incentive to go that route .

By the way, I do recognize the importance of a stable owner to a franchise bid, as they don't grow on trees. There is an argument to be made that the opportunity will be lost if we don't jump at it. I just think that there are more important considerations when building the city's only major stadium. I also suspect that given the economy, the $40 million entry fee will be a high point for the forseeable future, and that new teams or relocation candidates will be available cheaper in 3 or 4 years. To me, from the outset, Ottawa's bid seemed like a good way to prepare the groundwork to get a team down the road.

 

The attendance was still good on Saturday - the reason for the quick exit was being lucky to get a space at the far end of the parking lot on the other side of Palladium Drive, where they open the extra exit after the game.

I completely agree with you about encouraging public transit use, but you really need to put the transit infrastructure in place first before you make it difficult to park. Otherwise you are just sacrificing your franchise.


Will MLS franchises be cheaper in future years? Maybe, who knows. Personally I doubt it, but if could predict where the economy is going I would be watching my Ottawa Sens/MLS games from Bert's Bar in Barbados, and the parking/bus situation would be of no interest to me. Having said that, Melnyk will not be pursing a franchise in the future if the Kanata stadium is turned down (according to Cyril Leader last Saturday), so I truly believe this is the one and only shot for MLS on Ottawa.


I do also believe that, from what I know, the Melnyk proposal is the better one for the city. Unfortunately I am not privy to the details of each proposal, so I am only going on what I have read in the press, plus my own (biased) opinions. However, my take is this:

• MLS has a higher profile in the US than CFL, and a higher profile for the city is desireable for economic and other reasons.
• There would be more MLS games than CFL, and each game generates money. SSE figures suggest $50-70M of annual economic benefit, and while I am skeptical of claims where I can't see the details, even half of this figure would be a phenomenal rate of return for the one-time City investment of around $33M.
• The Melnyk proposal appears to be better costed and thought out in general. It uses a majority of Federal and Provincial infrastructure money, rather than have the city fund it through debt. Everybody is looking for shovel-ready projects, so I think the Melnyk approach is the right one for Ottawa taxpayers.
• The Lansdowne Live proposal suggests that the city use the money it is paying to maintain the site, to pay the interest on a loan which funds the stadium. I think there is a fundamental error with the assumption that the city will have to pay $4M per year to maintain the site for the next 30 years, just because that's what they are currently paying. If Lansdowne Live does not proceed, there will still be development on that site which will end the maintenance payments (and should add significantly to the city finances if done properly).
• If Lansdowne Live does not proceed, the city has still got the opportunity to develop the site without a stadium, with the Cattle Castle as a centrepiece.

Just my 2c. Good discussion, by the way!

 

Admittedly I am guessing with respect to the franchise fee going down. I just think the reaction of so many potential bidders is an indication that the fee is too high. You may be right about this being Ottawa's one chance, but that is really hard to be sure of. I think a successful USL team would put Ottawa in a good position to bid at a later date, if it wanted to do so.

The raised profile for the city and economic spinoff effect are good points in favour of MLS, but notoriously hard to measure. I just wish that a compromise could be worked out. It still goes back to location for me. With the possible exception of gas stations, I think the local spinoffs in a neighbourhood with established restaurants/stores/bars like the Glebe and Ottawa South are going to be higher than in Kanata. Given the choice between vague promises of raised profile for the city and a more vibrant city core, I would choose the latter.

As far as the financing numbers go, I haven't seen a detailed breakdown either. I don't think there is any clear answer on the availability of infrastructure funding, but as I understand it, the city's total contribution would be less for the Lansdowne proposal, and that would include the cost of refurbishing the Civic Centre arena and conference facilities. Those are as important as the stadium in my view. If the stadium goes to Kanata, those facilities still need to be rebuilt, which almost doubles the price tag. (Though my best guess is that if we build in Kanata, they continue to rot and cost us more for another 10 years.) On the basis of overall return for investment, redoing the existing facilities seems like it must be the more economical proposition.

Of course as a Fulham supporter, this may all be a result of my bias towards stadiums near waterways.

 

From what I know the city is on the hook for much more money for the Hunt proposal, although they describe it as cost-neutral, because of the claim that I mentioned before, that the City are paying out money already.

As I understand it, the funding proposals work like this, but as I noted before, I have no insight, just the press to rely on.

Melnyk:
Franchise Fee: $40M (Melnyk)
Stadium Cost $110M, to be paid 1/3 Feds, 1/3 Province, 1/3 (Mostly City + Some Melnyk)

Hunt:
Franchise Fee: $7M (Hunt)
Stadium Cost unknown, but maybe in the order of $120-130M, ALL to be paid by the City by means of a loan with repayments approx $4M per year (equal to current maintenance).

Much of this came from this Citizen article:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Sports/Clear+over+stadium+space/1338949/story.html

 

I don't have a quote, but I've seen the Lansdowne stadium cost pegged at $80 to 100 million, and that included the Civic Centre as part of the project. As I read it, there remains the potential to apply for federal/provincial funding to bring that cost down.

I think one of the drawbacks of the Lansdowne proposal is that they haven't been very clear on the costs. Presumably they need to be more specific when they present to City Council this month.

 

Maybe it's the Impact's recent run, but I would be almost as excited to see a USL team here as I would an MLS team. USL and CFL would be a nice combination.

 

Yes, I'm sure I remember reading $86M somewhere...

There is the possibility of applying for Federal/Provincial funding, but they are running out of time. The financing models are being presented to council this month, for the final vote early next month.

I get the impression that the Hunt Group didn't work out the financing in much detail because they thought they were the only game in town and they didn't need to for Council to approve. That's why I don't like Lansdowne Live (and of course because I am biased towards soccer )

 

If Ottawa Council think that the Hunt Group funding model is acceptable, then surely we can get both stadia, with the City funding the Hunt proposal out of interest payments, and the Feds and Province footing most of the bill for the Melnyk stadium out of infrastructure funding?

It might need Hunt and Melnyk to chip in a little more up-front, maybe in lieu of reduced property tax payments or something later, but we can't be that far off making it work.